|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truly pathetic, indeed.
This lapdog (my term for the typical "feminist" male) may consider himself "a religious person," but he certainly has no real understanding of what religion is about.
Unfortunately, there is a good deal in the history of the Semitic religions (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) that can be interpreted as he does; but as always with such ax-grinders, he ignores anything that does not fit his thesis and foregone conclusion.
The idea that inter-gender hostility as expressed in religion, as well as elsewhere, is due to "male insecurity" is a common one in feminist "theory." What's even more interesting is that nowhere I've seen this idea raised has there been any consideration of whether there might be any reason for such insecurity.
If, as we are constantly told, women are powerless, helpless victims of male oppression, males cannot possibly have any reason to feel "insecure." However, it seems we do, since our "insecurity" must be the cause of the "misogyny" found in religion.
As usual with feminist theorizing, it just doesn't add up. Either we are insecure, in which case there must be a reason for our insecurity, in which case the picture of the All-Powerful Male Oppressor cannot be true; or we are not insecure, in which case where did this "religious misogyny" come from?
For my part, as I have become aware of the real power wielded by women, I have no trouble at all buying the idea of a "male insecurity" which is a major factor in relations between the sexes.
For instance, over a hundred million American men and boys have been subjected to a savagely brutal torture and crippling mutation by their own mothers, an experience which must remain deeply buried and critically influential in the American male psyche. I suppose this must be an example of the "feminine behaviors" this writer celebrates. Do you feel "insecure"? I sure as hell do.
Since religion of any type can be characterized as an expression of the human effort to become more conscious, it doesn't surprise me that women, who tend to insist on their "right" to remain unconscious, tend to be seen as embodying the opposite of what religion represents in human life.
If women don't like the results, I'd suggest they might pay a leetle more attention to their power and how they use it. Mostly they use it unconsciously, and often quite destructively.
Once I was in an argument with a girlfriend, with the usual lack of resolution; finally in exasperation I complained that what she was saying was not logical. "I'm not logical," she replied. I thought, well, she's right. Trump card; end of that argument.
As the ancients advised, Never argue with a woman - or with a "man" who is no more than a woman in disguise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 25, @10:09AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly, Andrew...the essence of woman is greed and vice, and religions (which were, like all great things, invented by men) are well to control the impulses of woman. To call this misogyny is only a tactic used by selfish women and feminine men. We can see first hand the consequences of allowing woman's power to spread - and terrorism against the West is only one of them. I'm sure much more is to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Umm, excuse me. It's not ALL women. There are some girls on Mensactivism.org, and I'm one of them. Sure, I'd like people to see God as non-gendered, but, hey, we refer to Him as "He". I personally would feel uncomfortable using "She" becuse it isn't a default pronoun. And if you think "she" or "her" is a default pronoun, you're some sort of femi-Nazi. :) And if you want a connotation of power, you're probably going to HAVE to use "he" to denote the Supreme Being. It's just the way it is. And as for terrorism, that is caused by holier-than-thou nut-jobs, not women...or men either for that matter. Remember that.
Hey, I'm beginning to wonder if the Devil is female after all of this misandrist horsecrap. Hell for me would be being surrounded by girls that shave their heads, spell "woman" with an "o" or a "y" instead of the "a", wear Lilith Fair T-shirts, sing AniDiFranco al the time, and burn efigies of men and/or phalli. ICK! (LOL)
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I buy the new definition of "lapdog." Can we come up with a (hopefully complementary-sounding) word for women who support the men's movement? I'm sorry. I'm just looking for a way to use fewer syllables in my letters to the editor.
And, oh by the way, has anyone actually come across any credible interpretations of Scripture or other religious history that implies that Satan is actually female? Believe it or not, it's something I've wondered about since childhood. (And that's forty years ago.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And, oh by the way, has anyone actually come across any credible interpretations of Scripture or other religious history that implies that Satan is actually female? Believe it or not, it's something I've wondered about since childhood. (And that's forty years ago.)
Satan has never, to my knowledge, been acknowledged as female. The Satan of the Bible actually appears to be the melding of several different characters, some of them gods from other religions. For instance, the devil's trident probably came from Neptune. The horns and goat's feet came from Pan.
Likewise, the Bible's Satan, or Lucifer (which originally meant light-bringer), does not consistently maintain the same character throughout the texts. For example, in the Book of Job, he is a friend of God's, but one who does not like man. In the Book of Revelation, Satan is the character we most recognize: the antihuman and antichrist.
The Bible isn't particularly friendly to women, though. Eve was punished in the Book of Genesis essentially for bringing Adam down with her. There are also various passages throughout the Bible which attempt to "warn" men about falling prey to female sexuality (think Samson).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bible isn't particularly friendly to women, though. Eve was punished in the Book of Genesis essentially for bringing Adam down with her. There are also various passages throughout the Bible which attempt to "warn" men about falling prey to female sexuality (think Samson).
Oh, and one other thing about the Bible and women. Some Biblical scholars believe that much of the anti-woman messages in the texts were the product of the translation of King James, who, they believe, was a closet homosexual.
It is also important to point out that the Bible specifically villifies quests for knowledge. It's in both Old and New Testaments (the Creation for Genesis, and, later, Jesus' statement to his disciples that a man must become as a child again before he can enter into Heaven).
If the search for knowledge and truth is anything, I'd say it's masculine. The majority of inventors and great thinkers of history have been male, so those who claim that the Bible's misogyny is the product of "typical masculinity" are way, way off base.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are some girls on Mensactivism.org, and I'm one of them. Sure, I'd like people to see God as non-gendered, but, hey, we refer to Him as "He". I personally would feel uncomfortable using "She" becuse it isn't a default pronoun. And if you think "she" or "her" is a default pronoun, you're some sort of femi-Nazi. :)
Interested in more etomology? Did you know "man" did not originally mean "male human?" Yes, I know you know that "man" has often been used to mean "mankind" and "male human," but there was a time when the "male human" definition of "man" didn't exist at all.
In Old English, "man" simply meant "human." If you were a male human, you were a "wer," (a form of which is still used today in words like "werewolf"). If you were a female human, you were a "wif" (from which we later derived "wife"). So all that alleged "de-sexing" of the English language back in the 1970s by gender feminists really wasn't necessary. The language was never really sexed. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to most of you for some thoughtful, intelligent comments, which prompt me to respond.
"Anonymous user," I assume this is a "joke," sarcasm for emphasis? Suffice to say that I do not hold the views you present, though there is a grain or two of truth therein.
"LadyRivka," thank you for a breath of fresh air! You sound like a woman I can respect. Real women (I've met a few) are awesome! I kiss your hand.
As for the need for a non-gender-specific pronoun -- the one issue where I will agree the feminists have a point -- some years ago I ran across a proposal, in a journal published by an "intentional community" in New Zealand (about which I never heard anything more) to use (instead of the various awkward expedients then in vogue, such as "co/cos" and "tey"): "e" (nominative), "es" (possessive) and "em" (objective). This proposal, by the way, was from a woman, who wrote:
"There are precedents for a single-letter word in 'I' and 'a,' so the form is acceptable. It may sound a trifle masculine, but with the common use of 'e,' the masculine 'he' would then require special emphasis. In any case, the visual effect, especially, would be comfortably neutral. ... 'him' and 'her' could be replaced for general usage by 'em' -- also a bit masculine sounding, but actually containing elements of both sex-designates; 'em' is already in daily use by children and others as a contraction of 'them,' so it would be merely put to a more formal or legitimate use. ... [For] 'his' and 'her' (or 'hers') ... I suggest 'es.' You see, while the primary purpose of sexless pronouns is to replace sex-designating pronouns, they will never replace _anything_ if they aren't used in daily speech and print. If one trips over something, one does not adopt it, but rather rejects it."
I rather liked this proposal, and have been using these pronouns myself now and then (increasingly of late) for the last twenty-five years.
"Religion and Gender" is a difficult and dangerous subject. And one to which I've given a lot of thought, being myself a person of primarily "religious" concern. Though I enjoy the discussions on Mensactivism, and often feel prompted to join in, the necessity of making haste to do so, before a thread has "died" and gone to the backlist, is often frustrating, as most of these subjects require considerable thought and care to address constructively.
I am not myself a Christian, though of course I grew up in this Christian culture -- I was reared mostly in the tradition of Socrates (my father was a philosophy/classics teacher); so my view of these issues tends to be somewhat more that of a "visiting anthropologist" than of one with any investment in what or how the Bible does or does not say.
As I've grown older, my youthful knee-jerk revolutionism, and automatic, thoughtless rejection of the "status quo," has evolved into a tendency to assume that things are the way they are for reasons, and that I'd be wise to first try to understand those reasons before just throwing everything out.
For instance, why is it that all modern, prevailing religions personify (when they do) the Supreme Being as male? And have been founded/created almost entirely by men?
The great saint Meher Baba was originally initiated into his lifework as Avatar by a famous woman spiritual adept, known as Babajan. I remember being intrigued to read that once when someone referred to her as a woman, she insisted, "I'm not a woman! I'm a man!" Why? Was this just an example of the "sexism" of Indian culture? And if so, how could such a highly-developed female being be subject to such low-class consciousness?
These questions would require a book to address properly, but if I can try to do it in a nutshell (this is the first time I've attempted to articulate this line of thought, so this is a "first draft"):
Human beings are, as many have remarked, suspended, in a way, between Earth and Heaven, between the material and spiritual worlds, between DOG and GOD (an interesting accident that these two words in English are reverses of each other). My bias is that I hold with those who believe that our task/purpose/destiny as human beings is to complete a journey, from "darkness" to "light," from the profane to the sacred, from the partial to the whole, from ignorance to enlightenment.
I also believe that we have all experienced many states of being, in forms as varied as animals, inanimate forms, non-physical states, etc., and, of course as human beings of both genders and every possible race, creed, etc. This idea is commonly called "reincarnation," though my own view is closer to the Buddhist "rebirth" (the difference, though significant, is not important here).
I believe that we "take birth" in various forms to experience different modes of existence, and to confront and resolve various "problems" or complete various "tasks" on the journey from ignorance to enlightenment. Just as an individual life is a series of such tasks, difficulties met and overcome, mysteries finally (hopefully) understood. And further that the various difficulties we encounter in any given lifetime are results of actions we have done in "previous" times or lifetimes. This idea is commonly known as "karma," a Sanskrit word meaning "action."
My primary disagreement with feminism is with its fundamental premise: that the two human sexes are separate types of being, like separate species, whose interests are necessarily diametrically opposed, and who must therefore be perpetually at war in a zero-sum game where the gain of one is inevitably the loss of the other.
In contrast, I see the human species more as one being in two bodies, each tending to manifest one of the two sides of the whole being. And in my observation, the traditional "stereotypes" hold a lot of truth: i.e. that women are, on average, closer to the Earth, to physical life, to feeling, etc.; while men are, on average, closer to Heaven, to mental/spiritual life, to thought, etc. This is not to say that either is "superior" to the other, as I believe to be fully human is to completely integrate both (all) sides of human consciousness/being/experience. However, it is also true that each element of human existence has its proper place and function, and when they are confused, we suffer. For instance, if we exalt feeling or emotion over reason, we live like animals, and suffer like animals.
As I understand it, while I am presently living in and experiencing a human male body and mind, I assume I have and probably will inhabit a female body/mind at various times in the past/future. By the Law of Karma, to denigrate or dislike women is a sure ticket to a "future" life as a woman who is disliked or denigrated. This understanding is the basis of the primary spiritual teaching, found in all religions, known as the Golden Rule: "Do not do to others what you would not wish done to yourself."
It is true that most contemporary human cultures tend -- on the surface anyway -- to denigrate the female and exalt the male. There are many reasons for this, including the very practical one outlined by Marvin Harris in Cannibals and Kings: in the primitive hunter-gatherer conditions that comprised 95+% of human history, girls tended to add more burdens to the tribe, i.e. babies (Harris's phrase: "the relentless fertility of the human female"), while boys would add to the group's strength; thus developed a natural tendency to value boy babies more than girls. Not anyone's "fault," but the inevitable result of the operation of economic laws; and as such, a good example of something that human beings, with the power of conscious thought and choice, can change -- but only if we first honestly confront and deal with the causes. (And no, free and easy abortion is not a solution: remember the Law of Karma.)
But I think there is more to it than that.
The first and crucial task for every male of every species is to separate himself from Mother, to establish himself as a separate, unique being. In the case of humanity, because we are beings (a collective being) who are seeking to bridge the gap between Earth and Heaven, this struggle to separate from Mother, who is, ultimately, Earth, forms the male as a being who is naturally disposed to strive toward the opposite pole of existence, i.e. Heaven. This is why, in my view, men tend to be the founders of religions and philosophies, inventors, explorers, innovators. Men are seekers by nature: seekers first of their own nature separate from/outside of Mother, then of the Eternal Other, that from which they have separated. On one level, "cherchez la femme," on another, Seek the One.
Thus it is natural to see God as a "male" figure: Mother is where we came from, Father is where we are going. (Just as an infant takes es first steps from Mother's arms to waiting Father -- but only in the now "old-fashioned" two-parent family.) In our impatience to complete the journey, we tend to neglect, reject and trash the one, and exalt the other. (In fact, women are on average no more considerate of the Earth -- our true Mother -- than are men. So much for the "superior" female "virtues" we hear so much about.) In our ignorance, we forget that neither by itself is the Whole, and that the journey isn't really to anywhere we aren't already.
While it is natural for men to be the seekers, prophets, priests (who mediate between humanity and Heaven), it is a serious error for such men to reject, ignore or exclude women in their minds or hearts. For we cannot really enter Heaven piecemeal; we must bring our whole selves. As I see it, Man's job is to "break trail," so to speak, for Woman; Woman's job is to support him in doing so, so he may show her the Way.
Truly great men have always understood this: to rule is to serve. That most men are not "great" in this sense may be deplorable, but that's the nature of the world: imperfect. When all women are perfect, then (and only then) can all men -- who are, after all, our mother's sons, every one of us -- be expected to be perfect as well.
Say you see a long, black automobile going down the street: a limousine. In the driver's seat is a man, in a uniform. In the back seat is a woman, all dressed up. Who's in charge? Is the woman being treated as an "inferior" because she's in the back seat? I don't really think so. This, I believe, is the natural form of "gender roles."
The feminist solution to the problem of male imperfection is to kick the male out of the driver's seat and take over the wheel herself. But, I notice, the car is still headed for the same cliff as before -- maybe even faster. Because the man was never anything other than, fundamentally, an extension of the woman -- a tool she created and used to get where she wanted to go. If she doesn't like where the car is going, what she needs to do is change her own motivating intention; then the driver will change direction without any necessity for a hate campaign or any violent action. That would be real "wisdom."
The tragic irony is that feminists, by hating men, really only hate themselves, their own creative, innovative, seeking abilities. One hand does not gain by cutting off the other. As all real teachers have taught, we exist to serve each other. This is the Truth; there is no other.
Some notes, in haste, toward an essay on Gender & Religion, etc.
"Can we come up with a (hopefully complementary-sounding) word for women who support the men's movement?" Well, I don't suppose this helps, but I just use "woman" when speaking of an adult human female, one I respect. That's what the word means, after all. I don't consider your average feminist to be a woman. (By the way, I suspect you mean "complimentary" rather than "complementary" -- though in this case, the latter gives an interesting meaning.)
As I understand it, Samson's error was allowing his passions to cloud his reason, so he couldn't see that he was being taken for a ride. Yes, by a woman, who used her power to destroy a man rather than support and build the best in him, and thus the best in herself. Which is what real women do.
Among Christians I know, it is widely felt that the Geneva Bible (and others related to it) is much superior to the King James -- the former being created by "the people," the latter by the power of the State.
I do agree that if we're going to personify God as female for the sake of "equal time," the same should be done with the "Mother of Lies." Only fair, no? In any case, for me all these are not separate "beings" but metaphors for elements of our own being. "God" is the best that we can be/hope to be; Satan is that little voice that tells us that if we can just be clever enough, we can get away with it this time. As humans, we can choose either, every moment.
"If you were a female human, you were a 'wif'..." And "woman," I understand, was originally "wif-man." I can agree also that it would be nice to have clearly separate words in English for "human," "male human," and "female human" -- like the Chinese "ren," "nan" (or "nanren") and "nü" (or "nüren"). Though I haven't thought of any really workable ones yet. I do generally use "humankind" rather than "mankind."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. A lot in common. :)
Andrew, thank you muchly for the compliment. YOU are a breath of fresh air. :) and the "Satan-is-female" thing is kind of a joke. But there are serious theological aspects...
And I also lovelove Marvin Gardner...basically the only anthro books I'll read. And I should read more up on the history of the English language and its gender pronouns. :) I know a lot of languages have different words for "male human", "female human", and "humanity" as a whole. (Japanese: otoko, onna, ningen/hito; German: Mann, Frau, Mensch, etc.) English has sort of a deficit in this department, or so it seems. (BTW, I'm a Spanish major who is also learning Japanese, so I'm a biiiiig etymology freak.)
As for a word for a woman involved in the men's movement...how about something I get from my more conventionally feminist sisters, "backlasher"? It has a nice ring to it, and it's turning the connotations of the word on its head. (GOOD, not BAD.)
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest 'es.' You see, while the primary purpose of sexless pronouns is to replace sex-designating pronouns, they will never replace _anything_ if they aren't used in daily speech and print. If one trips over something, one does not adopt it, but rather rejects it."
Hmmm. The "es" bothers me, but only because "es" is a Spanish verb. Considering the Spanish language has become a large part of American culture, I think using "es" for a pronoun in English might result in some confusion.
Or not. :)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
